Hi Tobin, On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 03:45:09PM +1100, Tobin C. Harding wrote: > When the system is idle it is likely that most files under /proc/PID > will be identical for various processes. Scanning _all_ the PIDs under > /proc is unnecessary and implies that we are thoroughly scanning /proc. > This is _not_ the case because there may be ways userspace can trigger > creation of /proc files that leak addresses but were not present during > a scan. For these two reasons we should exclude all PID directories > under /proc except '1/' > > Exclude all /proc/PID except /proc/1. > > Signed-off-by: Tobin C. Harding <m...@tobin.cc> > --- > scripts/leaking_addresses.pl | 11 +++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/scripts/leaking_addresses.pl b/scripts/leaking_addresses.pl > index 6e5bc57caeaa..fb40e2828f43 100755 > --- a/scripts/leaking_addresses.pl > +++ b/scripts/leaking_addresses.pl > @@ -10,6 +10,14 @@ > # Use --debug to output path before parsing, this is useful to find files > that > # cause the script to choke. > > +# > +# When the system is idle it is likely that most files under /proc/PID will > be > +# identical for various processes. Scanning _all_ the PIDs under /proc is > +# unnecessary and implies that we are thoroughly scanning /proc. This is > _not_ > +# the case because there may be ways userspace can trigger creation of /proc > +# files that leak addresses but were not present during a scan. For these > two > +# reasons we exclude all PID directories under /proc except '1/' > + > use warnings; > use strict; > use POSIX; > @@ -472,6 +480,9 @@ sub walk > my $path = "$pwd/$file"; > next if (-l $path); > > + # skip /proc/PID except /proc/1 > + next if ($path =~ /\/proc\/(?:[2-9][0-9]*|1[0-9]+)/);
Can't we just do, substr($path, 0, len("/proc/1/")) eq "/proc/1/" ? seems much easier to read than the regex. Cheers, Tycho